Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Assessment. 2024 Jun;31(4):892-898. doi: 10.1177/10731911231198205. Epub 2023 Sep 11.
Anecdotal evidence has suggested that rater-based measures (e.g., parent report) may have strong across-trait/within-individual covariance that detracts from trait-specific measurement precision; rater measurement-related bias may help explain poor correlation within Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) samples between rater-based and performance-based measures of the same trait. We used a multi-trait, multi-method approach to examine method-associated bias within an ASD sample ( = 83). We examined performance/rater-instrument pairs for attention, inhibition, working memory, motor coordination, and core ASD features. Rater-based scores showed an overall greater methodology bias (57% of variance in score explained by method), while performance-based scores showed a weaker methodology bias (22%). The degree of inter-individual variance explained by method alone substantiates an anecdotal concern associated with the use of rater measures in ASD.
有传闻证据表明,基于评分者的测量方法(例如,家长报告)可能具有很强的跨特质/个体内共变,从而降低特质特异性测量精度;评分者测量相关的偏差可能有助于解释在自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)样本中,基于评分者和基于表现的同一特质测量之间的相关性较差。我们使用多特质、多方法的方法,在 ASD 样本(n=83)中检查方法相关的偏差。我们检查了注意力、抑制、工作记忆、运动协调和核心 ASD 特征的表现/评分者工具对。基于评分者的分数显示出总体上更大的方法偏差(方法解释分数的 57%),而基于表现的分数显示出较弱的方法偏差(22%)。方法单独解释的个体间方差程度证实了与在 ASD 中使用评分者测量相关的传闻担忧。